Comparing the efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus open pyeloplasty in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis

World Journal of Urology

Volumn 33, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1855-1865

  Chang, Shang Jen ^a,b   Hsu, Chun Kai ^a,b   Hsieh, Cheng Hsing ^a,b   Yang, Stephen Shei Dei ^a,b  

^a TAIPEI TZU CHI HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^b TZU CHI UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Children; Meta analysis; Pyeloplasty; Review; Robotic

Indexed keywords

CHILD; HUMAN; KIDNEY DISEASES; KIDNEY PELVIS; LAPAROSCOPY; META ANALYSIS; PLASTIC SURGERY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); ROBOTICS; UROLOGIC SURGERY;

CHILD; HUMANS; KIDNEY DISEASES; KIDNEY PELVIS; LAPAROSCOPY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; ROBOTICS; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 84945441910     PISSN: 07244983     EISSN: 14338726     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1526-3     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Reddy MN, Nerli RB (2015) The laparoscopic pyeloplasty: is there a role in the age of robotics? Urol Clin North Am 42(1):43–52
2. Peters CA, Schlussel RN, Retik AB (1995) Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 153(6):1962–1965
3. Mei H et al (2011) Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 25(5):727–736
4. Sukumar S et al (2014) Correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: national trends and comparative effectiveness in operative outcomes. J Endourol 28(5):592–598
5. Tomaszewski JJ et al (2012) Pediatric laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: technical considerations. J Endourol 26(6):602–613
6. Autorino R et al (2014) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 65(2):430–452
7. Monn MF et al (2013) Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urology 81(6):1336–1341
8. O’Brien ST, Shukla AR (2012) Transition from open to robotic-assisted pediatric pyeloplasty: a feasibility and outcome study. J Pediatr Urol 8(3):276–281
9. Lee RS et al (2006) Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 175(2):683–687; discussion 687
10. Yee DS et al (2006) Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urology 67(3):599–602
11. Sorensen MD et al (2011) Comparison of the learning curve and outcomes of robotic assisted pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 185(6 Suppl):2517–2522
12. Barbosa JA et al (2013) Comparative evaluation of the resolution of hydronephrosis in children who underwent open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 9(2):199–205
13. Dangle PP et al (2013) Outcomes of infants undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty compared to open repair. J Urol 190(6):2221–2226
14. Bansal D et al (2014) Infant robotic pyeloplasty: comparison with an open cohort. J Pediatr Urol 10(2):380–385
15. Behan JW et al (2011) Human capital gains associated with robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children compared to open pyeloplasty. J Urol 186(4 Suppl):1663–1667
16. Liu DB et al (2014) Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 10(4):610–615
17. Varda BK et al (2014) National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 191(4):1090–1095
18. Tasian GE, Wiebe DJ, Casale P (2013) Learning curve of robotic assisted pyeloplasty for pediatric urology fellows. J Urol 190(4 Suppl):1622–1626
19. Braga LH et al (2009) Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol 56(5):848–857
20. Sukumar S et al (2014) Minimally invasive vs open pyeloplasty in children: the differential effect of procedure volume on operative outcomes. Urology 84(1):180–184
21. Cheung CL et al (2014) Use of 3-dimensional printing technology and silicone modeling in surgical simulation: development and face validation in pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Surg Educ 71(5):762–767
22. Cundy TP et al (2014) Meta-analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children. BJU Int 114(4):582–594
23. Rowe CK et al (2012) A comparative direct cost analysis of pediatric urologic robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery: could robot-assisted surgery be less expensive? J Endourol 26(7):871–877
24. Sethi AS, Regan SM, Sundaram CP (2011) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without a ureteral stent. J Endourol 25(2):239–243
25. Kocvara R et al (2014) Unstented laparoscopic pyeloplasty in young children (1–5 years old): a comparison with a repair using double-J stent or transanastomotic externalized stent. J Pediatr Urol 10(6):1153–1159
26. Koh CJ (2013) Editorial comment. J Urol 190(6):2226–2227